Cadellin

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 922 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Cadellin

• 
  46

  Review and Comments on the New Elders Book

  by MrDarkKnight in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i recently completed an exhaustive review of an unofficial copy of the new elders manual.

  my father, who is currently serving as an elder told me a friend of his in the service department told him it was on the internet so i eagerly looked for it and found it.

  yes, i know it was a violation of copyright, but while at bethel i made copies of many technical manuals which is also a copy of copyright so the wts hypocrisy does not concern me.. i was appointed as an elder the year the pay attention book (manual replaced by this one) was released so i have very good working knowledge of the old book and could compare the two books.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  I may have lost my mind, but I found my soul.

  Amen.
• 
  160

  I'm new here..... Studying with the Witnesses

  by PenelopePaige in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi- i just wanted to say that i have been checking the website out for a few weeks and have read some horror stories and some sad ones.

  but i have been studying with witnessess for about six months and can't help but feel that they're completely sincere and maybe even, the true religion.

  i love the watchtower and awake and to me, none of that seems crazy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  Good stuff here, so I don't have much to add. Penelope, welcome. You are smart to come here. Despite what ConcernedJW says, most of what you hear on this site is NOT hearsay but first hand primary evidence from people who gave a significant portion of their lives to the WT. As someone who was raised by former missionary parents and spent several years pioneering, I will join in the chorus and suggest that you tie on your running shoes...

  As far as "JWs never claimed they are perfect," I just want to add one simple thing. It doesn't matter. That can't be used as a rhetorical safety hatch, as if it somehow excuses all their failed predictions and wrong interpretations. Rather, when the WT makes a statement, prediction or interpretation, it presents it, not as the best guess of imperfect men but as coming from God--"food at the proper time," "dining at God's table," provisions from Jehovah, direction from his "spirited-anointed" / "spirit-directed" / "spirit-led" organization (I'm sure you've heard one or more of those phrases already) and as something that is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AT THE TIME. They even use the phrase "present truth" to describe current beliefs, while paradoxically clinging to the ontological stance that truth is absolute. There is no option as to whether you as a JW will agree, accept or obey. You will, because otherwise it is the same as DISOBEYING JEHOVAH. These two situations are presented as equivalent.

  The WT organization assumes divine authority when dispensing information but shirks it under the disclaimer "we never said we were perfect" when it turns out they are wrong. And, in my opinion, that stinks.
• 
  61

  Never, ever posted to a site before-Scarec silly

  by PaintedToeNail in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi, i'm scared to death writing this that i will be discovered and have major problems.

  i had a good life being raised as a jw child.

  many good memories of people, places and times.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  Greetings, PTN: Wow, I loved reading your post because you and I are in such similar circumstances! I, too, am a wife and mother who was raised in the "truth" by zealous yet balanced and loving parents. I had a great childhood and was convinced right up until about eight years ago that this was the ultimate and absolute truth. I, too, like you, am married to a wonderful husband who is an active elder.

  What opened my eyes was researching the Creation book and finding, to my shock and heartbreak, how many of the supposedly scientific quotes were taken grossly out of context or from non-authoritative sources. How, I wondered, could an organization that publishes material like this in the name of the God, as "food at the proper time" with all of the theological weight such description invokes, engage in such unethical--deceitful, really--behavior? That led me to actually research evolution--by this time I realized that everything I "thought" I knew about it had come from the WT--and when I started reading the accumulation of real, relevant scientific findings, I was staggered. I started posting here about that time and quickly latched on to the wonderful, amazing Leoleaia's posts about Biblical and ancient Near East history as well as her vast knowledge of NT textual and source criticism. I started reading scholarly works on the Bible and quickly realized how inept and baseless many of the claims he WT make regarding the putative historicity of the Hebrew Scriptures.

  Like you, I couldn't continue to engage in the field ministry or sit through meetings on a regular basis. This is tough, really. But it does get better. Remember, you have a right to your own beliefs. You have a right to make decisions about your life and what you will believe. I go to Sunday meetings to keep peace with my husband. In return, he doesn't pressure me to attend at other time or to engage in the ministry. As far as my child goes, I am as honest as I can be. And I respect my husband's right to teach our child what he believes. I encourage our child to make up his own mind.

  This has been longer than I intended. I just want to say how much I appreciate a new poster like you who's in the same situation I'm in. And let me add that it is possible to work out a compromise, to glean some of the good things that the WT teaches (and they do teach some good things) and let the rest roll off your back.
• 
  59

  New to this site. Scared, Lonely and in a lot of pain due to shunning by my family.

  by wonder*woman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is my very first post to this forum.

  i am begging for some much needed encouragment and support by those who are kind hearted and know exactly the pain shunning causes.

  i am a 30 year old former jehovah's witness and a mother of two beautiful girls.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  Hello and Welcome, WW! THank you for sharing your situation. At least it sounds like your mother is reasonable. All I can say is hang in there and stand your ground. Things will get better. As Churchill said, if you're going through hell, keep going. YOu are among friends here who can truly understand what you're going through. This silliness to begin shunning just because the family feels like it is unBiblical and cruel--and bravo for you for telling your mother that that's what convinces you that JWs don't have the truth. Good for you!
• 
  25

  My dad wont make it too much longer, advise/experiences needed

  by Coffee House Girl in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello all at jwn,.

  so my mom called to tell me that my dad wont be able to come back home, he has been on kidney dialysis (along with having congestive heart failure and diabetes and dimentia...) but now he is breaking down and will have to be admitted to a hospice center for the remainder of his time left (without dialysis wont be two weeks).

  most of you know my situation, faded (not dfd or dad) but most of my family treats me like i am disfellowshipped except my mom and she keeps getting warnings from elders to cut off dealings with me- my dad is inactive but as head of the household he demands that i be able to visit and take care of mom and dad (so my mom must be submissive to his wishes).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  Coffeehouse Girl: I'm so sorry about this terribly difficult time. You've been given really good advice by others here and all I have to say is that your dad is the one that matters right now. Do whatever you believe will make him comfortable and peaceful, both physically and emotionally. And, secondly, treat your mother and other family members the way you would like to be treated. JWs are so quick to impute lousy things to those who have woken up; it's nice to be able to rise above their mean-spirited ideas and prove them wrong.

  Take care and keep us posted.
• 
  28

  New here. I was robbed of an education

  by AnthonyMorrisXIII in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!

  [endif][if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-ca0e-42d2-bf39-b33af135cc4d" id=ieooui> </object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  HI and Welcome! I'm sorry about your childhood. Dreadful. All to please a "loving" God.

  I'm in a similar boat--inactive and go to mtg on Sun to keep the spouse content. This is a good place to be!

  Also, good for you to get caught up with your education--it's never too late. I got my MA just recently and I'm on the south side of the 40's. So keep on keeping on!
• 
  69

  How big is a demon?

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  things which exist are real enough.

  we can measure them.

  they are just this big and no bigger or smaller.. they are here and not there.. imaginary things have the luxury of being any size.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  Bigger than a breadbox but smaller than a refrigerator.
• 
  3

  "The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science"--and why JWs resist the truth about the "Truth"

  by Cadellin in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this recent mother jones article is pretty illuminating as to how defense mechanisms kick in when cherished beliefs are threatened by new information.

  all the responses discussed--discrediting the source, denying the validity of the evidence, etc.--are, no surprise, exactly the strategy employed in wt publications discussing biblical criticism, evolution and other contradictions to the wt worldview.

  what i found interesting was that such emotionally-driven responses feel like rational responses to the individual because the emotion to preserve belief systems kicks in before the analytic response.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  This recent Mother Jones article is pretty illuminating as to how defense mechanisms kick in when cherished beliefs are threatened by new information. All the responses discussed--discrediting the source, denying the validity of the evidence, etc.--are, no surprise, exactly the strategy employed in WT publications discussing Biblical criticism, evolution and other contradictions to the WT worldview. What I found interesting was that such emotionally-driven responses feel like rational responses to the individual because the emotion to preserve belief systems kicks in before the analytic response. I'd like to show this to my husband, but I know he'll discredit it and point out all the ways it doesn't apply, thereby unwittingly providing support for the point being made. Except he won't see it that way.

  http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
• 
  20

  "When Was the Bible Written?" June 1, 2011 Public Edition--Oh, Wow!

  by Cadellin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i say, "oh, wow!

  " because this article is a showcase for all of the ways that the writing dept.

  has lost any shred of authoritative ethos or credibility.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  Leo's observation is a great indicator of Watchtower epistemology: Although some truth can be discovered through observation and investigation, it will always be subordinate to truth revealed through divine writ. If that which is discovered through natural phenomenon seems to contradict the Bible, then it is the conclusion of natural phenomenon that is wrong. Because the Bible is considered the a priori Inspired Word of God, it exists outside of the realm of meaningful analytic inquiry. That is to say, it can be investigated only to the extent that the results of that investigation reinforce pre-existing belief.

  When any investigation reveals information that might challenge that belief, then one of the following happens: (1) the source is discredited and the information rejected. For example, in the article I mention, Biblical scholars are characterized as unreliable and unable to agree on anything; (2) WT eisegesis is altered to allow for that information (such as in the recent implicit shift to creative days that are unspecified "eons" in length) while still maintaining the infallable inspiration of the Bible or (3) the information is ignored, chalked up to "wait on Jehovah" or something similar, or explained through convoluted and baseless hypotheses, like the recent "overlapping generations" nonsense.
• 
  20

  "When Was the Bible Written?" June 1, 2011 Public Edition--Oh, Wow!

  by Cadellin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i say, "oh, wow!

  " because this article is a showcase for all of the ways that the writing dept.

  has lost any shred of authoritative ethos or credibility.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cadellin

  I say, "Oh, Wow!" because this article is a showcase for all of the ways that the Writing Dept. has lost any shred of authoritative ethos or credibility. I won't go into all the ways in this post, but want to share one gem in particular.

  "Criticism of the Bible has taken many forms since then [referring to previous para]. For example, a recently published dictionary of the Old Testament contained detailed articles on form criticism, historical criticism, literary/narrative criticism, history of Pentateuchal criticism, source criticism, and tradio-historical criticism."

  This is under the subheading "What the Critics Say." Now, it's clear that the writer has no clue what "criticism" means in the scholarly sense. He's trading on the popular/common definition of criticism as "faultfinding; censuring; disapproval," the intent being to show the great extent to which secular sources will go to discredit the Bible. (This is more of the WT's strategy to control information by trying to discredit anything written by secular outsiders.) But "criticism" as it's used in the context of a reference work, particularly when coupled with a modifier like "historical" or "source" means something quite different: investigation and analysis. While there may an evaluative or judgmental aspect to scholarly criticism, the point is not mere faultfinding or disapproval, as the WT's use implies.

  There's a parallel in the distinction between the common useage of the word "theory" and the scientific use. "Theory" in common parlance usually means a best guess, while "theory" used in a scientific context means a systematic statement of principles of observed phenomena, which has been verified to a high enough degree to make it stronger than a mere hypothesis. In some cases, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it's all but proven (though nothing is technically proven in science). Same with the theory of evolution. But many WT speakers (and maybe this has happened in the publications, too, though I can't put my hand on a source) use the two terms interchangeably. I've heard speakers from the platform say about evolution that "it's just a theory but they teach it like a fact." Of course, it's "just a theory." It's also a fact.

  But I'm not trying to talk about evolution here, rather a similar rhetorical move located in the June 1 WT. There are two possibilities, both of which are disturbing. Either the writer honestly didn't know the difference between the two definitions of "criticism," or he knew and deliberately chose to manipulate his use of the word. In the first case, if a writer has such a limited knowledge, he shouldn't be writing about this subject in the first place. (Duh!) In the second case--well, it's just plain deceptive. Neither possibility enhances the WT's already shoddy reputation when it comes to intellectual honesty or credibility.